DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, sub-combination I drawn to claims 1-6 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination to include claims 1-15 could be performed without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because: the search queries required for the mechanical structure of either the false eyelash support or the case for dispensing false eyelash require searching keywords and synonyms of the structures, which are different than the search queries require for the method steps of installation. In addition, the inventions require different field of search (A45D2/48 vs A41G5/027). In addition, Invention A (Claims 7-14) and Invention B (claims 1-6) which are related as combination and sub-combination, respectively. These two inventions are distinct since the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the sub-combination as claimed because the combination requires “a second drive means configured to cooperate with the first drive means of the false eyelash support and so that an actuation by a rotational movement of the case and/or of the false eyelash support causes the rotary movement of the false eyelash support in order to convey the false eyelashes towards the dispensing opening and allow the false eyelashes to be gripped through the dispensing opening.”, and the sub-combination has separate utility such a shock absorbent to reduce impact force between objects positioned between the inner and outer of the support or an organizer for toothpicks placed between the inner threads of the support.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 25, 2026.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (h) because FIGs 3, 6 and 10 fail to show the plane upon which a sectional view is taken which should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 should read “A false eyelash support configured to be assembled to a case of a device for dispensing false eyelashes,
the false eyelash support comprising, on at least a portion of an outer periphery, a plurality of false eyelashes arranged in predetermined areas,
the false eyelash support comprising a first drive means cooperating with the case so that an actuation of the case and/or of the false eyelash support causes a rotary movement of the false eyelash support in order to convey the false eyelashes towards a dispensing opening of the case and allow a gripping of the false eyelashes through the dispensing opening.”. Correction or clarification is required to overcome this issue.
Claim 2 should read “The false eyelash support according to claim 1, wherein the at least [[a]] the portion of the outer periphery of the false eyelash support is provided with teeth forming between them a housing wherein [[a]] plurality of false eyelashes are arranged.”, since these terms have been introduced in claim 1. Correction or clarification is required to overcome this issue.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are “first drive means” in claims 1 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “The recesses 48 form the first drive means 28 as shown in FIGs 2 and 6” described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schapiro et al (US 8967378 B2, hereinafter “Schapiro”).
Claim 1. Schapiro discloses a handheld toothpaste support (Fig 3, 30) configured to be assembled to a case of a device ( Fig 1, 10) for dispensing handheld toothpaste (34) (abstract), the support comprising, on at least a portion of an outer periphery (annotated Fig 3, A), a plurality of handheld toothpaste (34) arranged in predetermined areas the support (arrangement of 34 in a predetermined areas as shown in Fig 3) comprising a first drive means (Fig 3, disk advancing mechanism 38) cooperating with the case so that an actuation of the case and/or of the support causes a rotary movement of the support in order to convey the handheld toothpaste (Col 4 lines 12-27) towards a dispensing opening (Fig 3, opening 24) of the case and allow a gripping of the handheld toothpaste (34) through the dispensing opening (Col 3 lines 60-67); but Schapiro is silent to a false eyelash.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the handheld toothpaste 34 inside the support of Schapiro’s dispensing device, with clusters of false eyelashes. Such modification would offer users a customizable and temporary way to enhance eye shape for special events or daily wear without the permanent commitment or high cost of semi-permanent salon extensions, and to be able to store and dispense the false eyelashes efficiently through the opening in order to meet users’ needs and preferences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Additional references were also reviewed during the examination of this application and listed for your reference in the notice of reference cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is 571- 270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights